To: LAUC-D Executive Board

From:LAUC-D Ad Hoc
Peer Review Documents Review Committee (PRDRC)

Re: Completion of Part I of the charge

The LAUC-D Ad Hoc Peer Review Documents Review Committee
(PRDRC) has met twice to complete the first part of the charge due January 30,
2001.We did our work cognizant of your
resolution passed December 13, 2000.It
states:

“Relevant sections of the APM
and Appendix E of the Contract are identical for the current review cycle. The
criteria for review are therefore the same for represented and non-represented
librarians. Everyone should refer to the appropriate set of documentation
throughout the review process.

It is recommended that the
current C-9 document be followed for represented and non-represented librarians
for the year 2000. Also, since the contract is retroactive to 1999, it is
recommended that the above statement apply to 1999 reviews."

The Committee interpreted the resolution to mean that all
represented and non-represented librarians, who are being reviewed in this
review cycle, should be reviewed under the same criteria as it is stated in
C-9.

For the practical purpose of carrying out this year's
academic personnel review process, the document we call C-9 will suffice for
both groups of librarians, the represented and the non-represented, because
right now there are few substantive differences with regard to the review
process.The intent of bargaining was
that there would not be any differences.If there are any discrepancies which come up during this review cycle,
those discrepancies should be brought to the attention of the General Library
Associate University Librarian for Administrative Services who will immediately
communicate them to the Chair of LAUC-D so that any problems may be remedied in
a timely manner.

For represented librarians, Article 4 (Process for Merit
Increase, Promotion and Career Status) of the Memorandum of Understanding as
well as Article 28 (Waiver) and its companion Appendix E (Applicable APM
Sections as of 7/1/00) contain the authoritative language which now supercedes
the APM language which exists in C-9.Copies of these pertinent documents will be provided to the represented
librarians, Review Initiators, the LAUC-D Academic Personnel Action Review
Board and any others who may need this information.

For the review cycle, which will end in December 2001, the
process will probably be the same. Work is being done to revise the documents,
which express the process for all librarians.

The Peer Review Documents Review Committee offers the
following statements to help all LAUC-D members understand the actions of the
current review cycle.

1.Librarian IV’s who had a regularly scheduled review completed
at the end of December 1999, will be reviewed again for merit action so that
they can be considered for transition to the new scale. The candidate’s review
packet (or Academic Review Record) shall not be revised for this subsequent
review.Only the recommendation may be
changed.The Committee discussed the
implications of not allowing changes to the packet.We do not believe that the lack of changes will affect the LAUC-D
Academic Personnel Action Review Board’s ability to make a recommendation.We assume a “no-action” review packet fully
records the Librarian IV’s previous three-yearaccomplishments.However, if the Review Board finds that they
need additional information in order to make a recommendation for an action, we
remind the Review Board that it is within their scope to requestadditional
information. The Review Board has the authority to request additional
information if needed under APM 360-80 (j) and MOU Article 4 (C) 15.We
also believe it will be important to review the Biography Form and its Annual
Supplement very carefully. These reviews will follow the procedures outlined in
C-9 at the point where the candidate can agree or disagree with the
recommendation, providing a statement if he/she disagrees.

2.Criteria for a one step merit action from Librarian IV to
Librarian III (Librarian IV transitional) should rely on the criteria as stated
in the current Library Policy Statement C-9 and Appendix E to Article 28 of the
MOU.This action should be considered a
normal one-step merit increase commensurate to the higher ranks of Librarian.
C-9 states “It is also expected that,
with advancement in rank, the level, scope, and quality of a librarian’s total
contribution will rise accordingly.”

3.Criteria for a one step merit action from Librarian V to
Librarian IV (Librarian V Transitional) should rely on the criteria as stated
in the current Library Policy Statement C-9 and Appendix E to Article 28 of the
MOU.This action should be considered a
normal one-step merit increase commensurate to the higher ranks of Librarian.
C-9 [Local language associated with 360-17b(1)] states “It is also expected that, with advancement in rank, the level, scope,
and quality of a librarian’s total contribution will rise accordingly.” Additionally,
C-9 [Local language associated with 210-4(3)e] states “The concept of growth and achievement in assessing the performance of
a librarian in progressing through the ranks is affirmed.”

4.

5.The Memorandum of Understanding, Article 12, Section A. 2
states the Universityand the UC-AFT agreed that for
fiscal years 1999-00, 2000-01 and 2001-02, each librarian shall remain on
his/her current review cycle with the exceptions noted in Sections A.3 and
A.4.Section A.3 allows a Librarian V,
who has received at least, one “no action”review at Step V, to be reviewed
one year early.Section A.4 allows a
Librarian IV, who has received at least, one “no action” review at Step IV, to
be reviewed one year early.These
reviews should not be considered accelerations, as stated in C-9, [Local
Language associated with 360-8a(1)]…after
the initial three-year review after reaching Step IV of Librarian, an
out-of-sequence review should be conducted as a normal promotion [sic] review,
not an acceleration.

6.TheMemorandum of Understanding, Article 12, Section A.5 is being
interpreted by the University and the UC-AFT to mean that a Librarian IV may
request consideration for the distinguished status, if they 1) have had at
least one “no action” review at Step IV or 2) are scheduled for a review action
this year. If a Librarian IV’s
next regularly scheduled review action is effective July 1, 2002 and has not
had at least one “no action” review, then an action this year will be
considered as an acceleration.Additionally, a Librarian IV, whose next scheduled review action is
effective July 1, 2002, may remain on the scheduled review cycle and request
consideration for distinguished status next year.